tso-d_chris

I don't think Locke's definition is appropriate here. What benefits have we the people accepted from the conflict in Iraq? Nor has there been a ballot referendum on the matter. Elections have been commonly decided by margins much smaller than the margin of error of the vote tabulation methods. There have also been many demonstrations against the war. People have been vocal. Even the Republican Congressmen arelistening, and starting to talk about exit strategy lately. They are afraid for their reelection bids. I would not say the people have given tacit consent.

If you'll recall, Congress authorized use of force as a last resort, certainly not before diplomatic avenues had been exhausted. Since there were no WMD, diplomatic avenues had indeed already been effective. A few more weeks and we would have known that without having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, destroy a sovereign country and end thousands and thousands of lives. Do you feel GWB and/or Congress knows better than you how to spend your money?

I believe there was... When? Somehow, I doubt that. Unfortunately, here in the US we call that Election Day.

Tacit consent implies silent acceptance, which has not happened. Many people have been very outspoken against the war. Was there ever a time when the war in Iraq was ever popularly supported by a majority of Americans?

At first glance it appears to be similar to, though more limited than, Skype.

Ummm... Florida winters only seem warm if you don't live here. For those of us that do, we freeze our asses off three weeks every year! Forget the jackets, we wear coats!

Please free the hamster first.

They are rights, not privileges. They do not need to be earned. The are granted by the Creator, not the government. There are no strings attached. I don't know what being a soldier has to do with understanding the politics behind the war. BTW I gave my country eight years.

Actually, that is exactly why I used the word "guaranteed" instead of "granted."

In light of the fact that this is taxpayer supported, and that many of those who complain are Americans, who happen to have a right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, why should it matter whether or not those that complain of the war have children fighting there?

An assasination would not likely have improved things much. Saddam left power not too long after the invasion. An assasination would have changed little that has happened after that. Anytime a leader is removed from power, by assasination or other means, a power vacuum is created. Someone is going to fill this vacuum. If the replacement is unknown or not anticipated to be an improvement over the current leader, the removal is probably not a good idea, and is likely to cause many problems. Bush Sr. understood this, and wisely left Saddam in power. It had nothing to do with approving of his governmental policies, and everything to do with not having a superior alternative to immediately offer.

Can you reconcile these statements?

I specified the left because you specified the left. I was wondering why one side and not the other. Go figure!

Post WWI Germany wanted to be prosperous again. AH came along and gave them scapegoat to blame for their lack of prosperity (to avoid have to take responsibility for their own problems), and a plan to bring back that prosperity, a plan that would require sacrifices on the part of the less important non-Germans instead of the Germans. Unfortunately, it was completely irrelevant whether or not his rhetoric was based in fact. The only thing that mattered was that a substantial portion of the population bought his story. AH was the champion of a cause. The awful ideology that was Naziism was not limited to the mind of AH. Many people had the same hysterical fears of non-Germans. But AH was a gifted orator who was able to move the people, a reminder that such charisma is not necessarily a good thing. I agree, though, that to a certain extent, without a champion, a political (or any other type) is not likely to be successful.

It is exactly this out of hand trivialization and dismissal to which I am referring. It marginalizes the effectiveness of peaceful protest, and in doing so, increases the relative effectiveness of non-peaceful protest. If you completely ignore the demonstration, out of hand, because the demonstrator, in your mind, went "WAY overboard," you are certainly not upholding your "responsibility to take the facts and assess them." I'm curious. What specific actions would you like to take in order "to take the clueless nut jobs and set them straight?" Another question, what makes her a "clueless nut job," while you yourself are more informed?

You don't mind if I ask which of my posts gave you this idea?

America installed Saddam as second in command. Surely we wouldn't install a monster, right? And that other guy you mentioned (not Milosevic)? Not only was he elected by the people, but he wrote and published a book telling exactly what he was going to do if he rose to power. And he tried to keep every promise. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? I think it should be required reading for high school students. Not only is the ideology apalling, the rhetoric is not as foreign as we would often like to believe in todays society in the US (and other places, likely). Personally, that scares the hell out of me. Almost as badly as the number of people that will argue differently without even having bothered to read the book, just because they believe that something like that could not happen here. It is important to understand the enemy. It is an ideology, not a group of people.

There, I fixed it for you!

I'm not sure I understand what steps are being taken by the left to try an restrict your rights. Can you be a little more specific?

I'm not understanding your point. Isn't a right so called because it is not granted by anyone or anything (except possibly God). The Constitution does not grant rights. It forbids the government from having the authority to invalidate certain rights, such as free speech or assembly. Priveleges on the other hand can be granted or revoked by the government. But not rights. They simply Are.

It wasn't directed specifically at you. My point is/was that since we do have the luxury of free speech and assembly in this country, we also have a responsibility to take notice when people go WAY out of their way to make a public message. If they are ignored, whether you agree with what they have to say or not, a little bit of the effectiveness of that freedom of speech and assembly withers away. When enough people ignore demonstrations like these, without even taking the time to understand the demonstrators position, it weakens the system. Having peaceful methods of protest that are virtually guaranteed to be ineffective is not much different than having no peaceful methods available. If someone feels their message is important enough, they will use whatever means necessary to get that message out there. To repect the demonstrators is to respect a system that allows peaceful demonstation. It has nothing to do with whether or not we agree with their message. It has everything to do with whether or not we respect the system that allows them to assemble peacefully.

No it didn't. You asked: My answer was: Under current foreign policy, any "petty dictator" that does not export oil knows that he can get away with most anything he wants without worrying about an American response. So yes, it is possible a just foreign policy would have prevented violence in places like Darfur and Zimbabwe. A peaceful world is in our self interest. Oil is not, at least not naturally so. In fairness, over the past century, the petroleum companies have worked very hard to fool Americans into thinking that we actually need oil. The fact is, however, that anything you can do with hydrocarbons, you can do with carbohydrates. It would be very easy to argue that allowing American farmers to produce fuel for America is, in fact, in America's self interests. In short, I am not convinced that the current foreign policy is doing anything to preserve America's self interests. Let's leave that topic for its own thread, already in progress.

Thanks for the link. I'll check out your mix later. Have a bump.

Must be. In the US, a comparably equipped PC is almost always more expensive than the Mac, often much more so. Of course, it's tough to find a Mac that is sparsely equipped, which is quite common for PCs, giving the illusion of lower prices even though tons more money must be spent to bring it up to minimal Mac specs.

Are you replying to something I said? If so, could you please highlight the relevance?